MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940702837

Housing Instability and Concurrent Substance use and Mental Health Concerns: An Examination of Canadian Youth.

2017· article· en· W2940702837 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tayla Smith, Lisa D. Hawke, Gloria Chaim, Joanna Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachMental healthAddictionPsychologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryMedicinePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Though previous research has identified the high burden of mental health and addiction (MHA) concerns among precariously housed youth, earlier studies have not examined differences in MHA concerns among housing insecure Canadian youth across sectors. This study examines this issue using the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener (GAIN-SS) in a cross-sectoral sample of Canadian youth. METHOD: A total of 2605 youth ages 12 to 24 seeking services across sectors completed the GAIN-SS and a sociodemographic form. The analyses described demographic variables and sector of presentation, then evaluated internalizing, externalizing, substance use, and crime/violence concerns based on housing status. RESULTS: < 0.01), which was largely driven by the high rate of concurrent disorders among precariously housed females. CONCLUSIONS: Since precariously housed youth with multiple clinical needs presented across sectors, attention must be given to screening for both housing stability and MHA and building stronger cross-sectoral partnerships. The findings should encourage systematic screening, MHA training and capacity building within housing sectors as well as integrated services across all youth-serving organizations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207